The Controversial '1992 Consensus': Foundation or Fiction?

The meetings between Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) in Hong Kong during 1992 produced what would become one of the most contested concepts in cross-strait relations: the so-called “1992 Consensus.”

The Hong Kong Meetings

In late 1992, representatives from both sides met to discuss practical matters:

Document verification
Registered mail delivery
Legal and business disputes

However, the political framework for these discussions became the crucial issue.

Competing Interpretations

Taiwan’s Version

“One China, respective interpretations” (一中各表):

Both sides acknowledge there is “one China”
Each side free to interpret what “China” means
ROC could claim to represent all of China
Maintained constitutional position while allowing flexibility

Beijing’s Version

“Both sides belong to one China”:

Taiwan is part of China
PRC is the sole legitimate government
Any interpretation must acknowledge PRC sovereignty
No room for “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan”

The Consensus That Wasn’t

Controversy surrounds whether a consensus was actually reached:

No written agreement was signed
Term “1992 Consensus” wasn’t used until 2000
Key participants give conflicting accounts
DPP argues it never existed

Political Manipulation

Both sides have used the “consensus” for political purposes:

KMT Usage

Justification for engagement with Beijing
Framework for economic cooperation
Electoral tool against DPP “provocations”

CCP Usage

Prerequisite for any official dialogue
Tool to constrain Taiwan’s international space
Means to delegitimize pro-independence forces

Democracy vs. Authoritarianism

The consensus debate highlights fundamental differences:

Taiwan’s Democratic Evolution:

Public opinion increasingly rejects “one China” framework
Democratic mandate requires government responsiveness
Transparency demands clear, public agreements

Beijing’s Authoritarian Approach:

Unilateral interpretation imposed
No tolerance for alternative views
Use of economic coercion to enforce compliance

Impact on Cross-Strait Relations

The ambiguous consensus has had lasting effects:

Facilitated Dialogue - Provided face-saving formula for talks
Created Confusion - Ambiguity led to misunderstandings
Political Weapon - Used to attack opponents domestically
Diplomatic Tool - Beijing uses it to isolate Taiwan internationally

Domestic Political Divisions

In Taiwan, the consensus became a partisan issue:

KMT: Essential for stability and prosperity
DPP: Fictional construct that undermines sovereignty
Public Opinion: Increasingly skeptical as Taiwan identity grows

International Perspectives

The international community remains confused:

Uncertainty about what was actually agreed
Difficulty in formulating coherent policies
Tendency to accept Beijing’s interpretation

Long-term Consequences

The 1992 Consensus controversy demonstrates:

How authoritarian regimes manipulate ambiguity
Democratic societies’ need for transparency
Fundamental incompatibility between systems
Importance of clear, written agreements

As Taiwan’s democracy matured, the ambiguous consensus became increasingly problematic, highlighting the growing chasm between Taiwan’s open, democratic society and China’s authoritarian system that brooks no dissent or alternative interpretations.